The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

ricky_v wrote:Speaking of jambudweepa, can anybody point me in the direction of vetted scholars studies on the subject of dvipas and surrounding oceans.Much appreciated.

Sadly, these dvipas come under fictional category. We can't seriously prove there is a ocean of milk out there. Back when Bhuddism was mainstream, things were not at all vedic. It's the folks from Guptha's time, who (re)wrote the purana and other things and revived Sanskrit literature. Jambu Dweep was lifted from Jain scriptures of those times. Some people say, even our jyothisa also adapted from Jains.

p.s. my earlier rant was about evolution theory which is quoted very seriously by some of our posters. This evolution theory is partially true but doesn't cover whole truth. Kinda anti-bhagavat gita. Our gita says, it's humans who will be born as animals based on their karma phala. There is no evolution, it's just fate of the beings.

^^^ This is an opinion, but had to reply lest others who visit the thread view your statements as facts!Given this thread is about out-of-India. I’ll restrict myself to say, in my opinion based on some fact what you have is far from it!PS: There is no such thing as Hindu, Jain or Buddhist... please be careful using words like “was lifted from Jain scriptures” etc.It only establishes what others might suspect to be the baseline of your discourse! End of Transmission

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^ This is an opinion, but had to reply lest others who visit the thread view your statements as facts!Given this thread is about out-of-India. I’ll restrict myself to say, in my opinion based on some fact what you have is far from it!PS: There is no such thing as Hindu, Jain or Buddhist... please be careful using words like “was lifted from Jain scriptures” etc.It only establishes what others might suspect to be the baseline of your discourse! End of Transmission

So whatever Buddhist monks wrote not qualified as separate scriptures?

You are just saying my statements are wrong. I didn't see any thing to back up your statement. You are just another poster here. Don't show this elite attitude, sir. You need to counter it proper way.

The evolution has been crystal clearly described in "Sankhya". When there was no matter and no time, the universe has been created from ऊँँ the pranava. To understand "pranava" it's very difficult, but if you practice and meditate for a number of years, you can also "create" / "dissolve into". The whole universe is created first with space, the space transforms into gas. Space is not what you can understand as in "English language". Gas is also not literally English "gas". Now "gas" has all the properties of space, but in addition to it it has special properties, such as"motion" etc. The "gas" transforms into "water". Again water is not "English language" water. Now "water" has all the properties of space and gas, and additionally it has other properties such as "binding". Now water turned into "Annam" . "Annam" turned into "aushadham".

"Sankhya" is huge and very difficult to understand. There are no words which can describe the evolution in any other language, except in "samskritham".

This whole evolution is nothing but evolution of matter. "Matter" also doesn't mean just the literal meaning in English language. "Manas" which is a pointer to a number of other parameters is also "matter".

"Matter" is called "prakruthi".

Prakruthi constantly changing. But it is "jadam".

There's another term "purusha". Purusha is not made up of prakruthi. But it is constant. It doesn't change. And it is "self illuminating". Again "self illuminating" doesn't mean literally what English language means.

The evolution is because of the "samyoga" of purusha and prakruthi.

If you don't understand what I said, just imagine your own body (while you are still alive) as the universe. Your double helix chromosome structure is the structure of universe. 70%water in your body represents 70% water on earth. Hope you understand now.

Vedas are "apaurusheya" which means they are not purusha they certainly are not prakruthi. If you deeply meditate, you can start reciting vedas though you may not understand. But you will understand all the knowledge. Your purusha is "complete" knowledge not only of understanding of how the "dweepas" evolved, the whole history of what happened and also the whole future of what is going to happen. For that you need to do sadhana and you will realize the whole truth of from where you came and where you are going to go. That state is called "kaivalya". "Tat tvam Asi" is what you will experience.

Sorry for late reply. At the risk of derailing the thread, I will try to get back to topic.

TKiran wrote:Syam, the space transforms into gas. The "gas" transforms into "water". Now water turned into "Annam" . "Annam" turned into "aushadham".

I think the order is, akasha->vayu->agni->jala->prithvi, each elements has the nature of all of it's predecessors. This evolution is different from what I am talking about. There was no ape ancestors for us. We will born as apes or animals or any being because of our karma phala.

~Your purusha is "complete" knowledge not only of understanding of how the "dweepas" evolved, the whole history of what happened and also the whole future of what is going to happen.

I didn't say dveepas are wrong. I even said Gondwanaland is Jambu dvipa. Our vedic ancestors might have used some thing similar to describe the earth. But these oceans of milk and other such oceans are not vedic. Some stories of Purana might be vedic. But purana are post-buddhist literature.

Theory of evolution refers to biology and physical bodies. You're talking of something else and in what physical body we take birth into.

Setting up a confrontation path with elementary level science such as evolution is unnecessary from a Dharmic pov, when in actuality our philosophies are much more aligned conceptually with evolution on the biological level.

As an archaeologist, if I have to dismiss the veracity of Native American oral traditions simply because they are not written down, then simple logic forces me to dismiss some of the accounts written in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also began as oral tradition. To do anything else would be to maintain a racist double standard.

A few years ago, linguists and a geographer in Australia documented instances in which humans have maintained accurate oral histories over 400 generations and up to 10,000 years. And according to historian Roger Echo-Hawk, Pawnee oral traditions document events that occurred during the last glaciation (at least 11,000 years ago), including humans crossing the Bering Sea into North America.

All of this is evidence for something that I’ve long suspected: Most humans, until very recently, desired and maintained cultural stability, not change. Change was a threat and was embraced only when absolutely necessary. And that is why Native American oral histories—and oral histories around the world, for that matter—were a reliable way of recording and learning from the past for thousands of years before writing was invented.

The interest of the Gypsies/Rom/Dom/etc. people to write their own history and establish an identity is understandable and timely.However what is disappointing is the lack of interest in Indians and her scholars in documenting and finding alliances with this and and even older diaspora in establishing a connection and a narrative in a systematic way. The best way to counter idiocies of AIT/AMT etc. is to not just challenge them for their mendacity, but create new narratives based on fact that compel them with examples of Westward migrations.

The Rakhigarhi DNA study is not unexpected. It is expected that the DNA will match one or the other group extant in present day India. Two caveats - it seems the Y DNA could not be fully sequenced and studying one skeletal DNA is not sufficient to judge the composition of a civilization estimated to be populated in millions. In the meantime, comes out the chariot discovery from UP dated to the mature period of IVC or SSC. If DNA can be extracted from the bones along with skeletons from other places it will give us a better picture. As for the India Today article various leftists and Aryanists are jumping the gun. Why I have explained above. I will reiterate what I said before that IVC or SSC was most likely multi-racial, multi-ethnic, even possibly multi-religious and multi-linguistic like many cosmopolitan urban cultures with the Vedic Aryans forming one component.

Funny thing is, the author mentions in his forward where he got inspiration from,

The world rides through space on the back of a turtle. It’s one of the great ancient myths, found wherever men and turtles were gathered together; the four elephants were an Indo-European sophistication. The idea has been lying in the lumber rooms of legend for centuries. All I had to do was grab it and run away before the alarms went off.

Brits are always shy about where they got inspiration from. I think west is running out of stories to tell, they are now ripping off our own stories.

If Ashoka is the Beloved of the Gods, how does it fit in with Buddhism? Aren't they supposed to be not-God type guys? How come Ashoka declared himself as beloved of Gods when most of his brethren didn't care about gods?

If Ashoka is the Beloved of the Gods, how does it fit in with Buddhism? Aren't they supposed to be not-God type guys? How come Ashoka declared himself as beloved of Gods when most of his brethren didn't care about gods?

Buddhists very much had a pantheon. It's like a wise man once told me. The human mind needs idols. So the Buddhists brought the Buddha himself back as an idol. Xtians have the Cross, even Muslims have their Kaaba idol. But on top of that, Buddhism, having emerged from India, was heavily into pantheon stuff. Currently reading Hsuan Tsang's memoirs. What strikes me is that this Chinese Buddhist guy prayed to a mother goddess (a goddess of Chinese flavor) when he thought he was going to die even before he started his journey, at the edge of the desert in China. Then he talks about car-festivals in central Asia, with the Buddha idol being taken in procession (in fact, Fa Hian also witnessed this car procession centuries earlier). Then his stories about the Buddha in India refer to legends of how the Buddha came back from heaven to preach to his mother, and how, when he did, Brahma came on his right holding a chamar (fan), and Indra on his left holding an umbrella. In fact, the Buddha is said to have converted the Devas themselves. Then when king Harshavardana was hosting Hsuan Tsang, a little before Tsang was about to return to China, Harshavardana dressed up as Indra and held an umbrella for a Buddha idol, while the king of Assam (nominally a Hindu) dressed up as Brahma and held a fan. Ashoka raja finds a lot of mention in Hsuan Tsang's memoirs, but surprisingly, there is nothing there about that epochal Kalinga battle which supposedly provided the guilt-complex, which led to Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism.

Hsuan Tsang's travel accounts sparked stories, centuries later, about a Buddhist monk who traveled from China to India to fetch the scriptures. This monk was accompanied by a monkey, a pig, and a friar. In fact, it is this monkey who is the real hero of these tales. Modeled after Hanuman? There are some theories to that effect. And this monkey talks to various "gods" to get things done on the way to India - the cloud-pusher god, the wind god, etc. So it wasn't just Buddhists in India who had a pantheon, those in central Asia, China, Japan, also had "gods," probably rolled over from their earlier religions into Buddhism.

Bottomline - yes, the Buddha was against idol-worship, he was agnostic, he was ascetic, not caring about gold or precious stones. However, the legends which grew around him hundreds of years later, made him out to be the ultimate truth (God, almost), had him converting heretics (Hindus), nagas, and Devas, had the Devas precede him everywhere strewing gold and diamonds on his path, had him display yogic powers like ascending to the skies and traveling by air, etc. Those legends also took many Hindu stories (such as that of emperor Shibi) and rebuilt them around the figure of the Buddha. If ever one is in doubt about how "idolatrous" Buddhists are, one just needs to think back to the massive statues that have been built for him, including at Bamiyan (which Hsuan Tsang visited and wrote about).

Rors have roots in Eurasia: DNA-based study published in American Journal of Human Genetics

excerpts

“Our study, based on DNA profiling of over 200 persons in Haryana and Pakistan, reveals that Rors have strong genetic similarities with the Pathan and Kalash communities in Pakistan. The study indicates that Rors may have moved from the Swat Valley, a peripheral region of the Indus Valley region, about 1,500 years ago,” said Chaubey, senior author of the report.

Light skin colour and average height of 6 feet were distinct characteristics of Rors, he said. “Saliva and blood samples of 154 Rors from 11 villages, including Amin, Katalheri, Sataundi and Dhatrath, were collected in 2012. Later, more samples were taken from Pakistan by our collaborators and the analysis were conducted in a state-of-the-art laboratory in Estonia,” he added.

Rors are predominantly an agrarian community in Haryana. They are present in various parts of the state and have a dominant presence in several villages of Kurukshetra, Kaithal and Karnal. Kadian, a native of Karnal, said he wanted to end widespread confusion about the Ror ancestry.

More rubbish from the Bu11$hit Corporation by one Tony Joseph, Brown Sepoy #2. Note - uses Hindu Right wing/Nationalist 9 times in this article, amply displaying his bias. Trying very hard to sell his crappy book.

Sorry for late reply. Kinda distracted by all political drama going on now.

sudarshan wrote:Buddhists very much had a pantheon. It's like a wise man once told me. The human mind needs idols. So the Buddhists brought the Buddha himself back as an idol. Xtians have the Cross, even Muslims have their Kaaba idol. But on top of that, Buddhism, having emerged from India, was heavily into pantheon stuff. Currently reading Hsuan Tsang's memoirs. What strikes me is that this Chinese Buddhist guy prayed to a mother goddess (a goddess of Chinese flavor) when he thought he was going to die even before he started his journey, at the edge of the desert in China. Then he talks about car-festivals in central Asia, with the Buddha idol being taken in procession (in fact, Fa Hian also witnessed this car procession centuries earlier). Then his stories about the Buddha in India refer to legends of how the Buddha came back from heaven to preach to his mother, and how, when he did, Brahma came on his right holding a chamar (fan), and Indra on his left holding an umbrella. In fact, the Buddha is said to have converted the Devas themselves. Then when king Harshavardana was hosting Hsuan Tsang, a little before Tsang was about to return to China, Harshavardana dressed up as Indra and held an umbrella for a Buddha idol, while the king of Assam (nominally a Hindu) dressed up as Brahma and held a fan. Ashoka raja finds a lot of mention in Hsuan Tsang's memoirs, but surprisingly, there is nothing there about that epochal Kalinga battle which supposedly provided the guilt-complex, which led to Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism.

That's where I am having problem with the whole story. If we observe IVC sites, we don't see any temples. They have public baths. I am firm believer in 'first lake, then temple'. We see lakes at our old sites, but not temple. To keep the moorthi, we need that temple. Anyway it gone off-topic.

Pre-Buddhist India was more about fire, ritual and corresponding deity. Buddha came into picture after this whole set up gone bad. He was against rituals and deity pandering(We don't worship). Ashoka came immediately after him(relatively saying). I don't see why he had to declare himself as dearest of gods.

Hsuan Tsang's travel accounts sparked stories, centuries later, about a Buddhist monk who traveled from China to India to fetch the scriptures. This monk was accompanied by a monkey, a pig, and a friar. In fact, it is this monkey who is the real hero of these tales. Modeled after Hanuman? There are some theories to that effect. And this monkey talks to various "gods" to get things done on the way to India - the cloud-pusher god, the wind god, etc. So it wasn't just Buddhists in India who had a pantheon, those in central Asia, China, Japan, also had "gods," probably rolled over from their earlier religions into Buddhism.

This transition, I am very interested in. If we can do research on it, we may discover new stuff. It may contradict the whole story so far we are following.

Bottomline - yes, the Buddha was against idol-worship, he was agnostic, he was ascetic, not caring about gold or precious stones. However, the legends which grew around him hundreds of years later, made him out to be the ultimate truth (God, almost), had him converting heretics (Hindus), nagas, and Devas, had the Devas precede him everywhere strewing gold and diamonds on his path, had him display yogic powers like ascending to the skies and traveling by air, etc. Those legends also took many Hindu stories (such as that of emperor Shibi) and rebuilt them around the figure of the Buddha. If ever one is in doubt about how "idolatrous" Buddhists are, one just needs to think back to the massive statues that have been built for him, including at Bamiyan (which Hsuan Tsang visited and wrote about).

I think that is bit of strong words for our monks. Buddhist didn't go and convert poor people by offering rice bags.

We all going through some hard times. It's nothing calm and pleasant these days. We really need to take a break from all the stuff going on.

That's where I am having problem with the whole story. If we observe IVC sites, we don't see any temples. They have public baths. I am firm believer in 'first lake, then temple'. We see lakes at our old sites, but not temple. To keep the moorthi, we need that temple. Anyway it gone off-topic.

Pre-Buddhist India was more about fire, ritual and corresponding deity. Buddha came into picture after this whole set up gone bad. He was against rituals and deity pandering(We don't worship). Ashoka came immediately after him(relatively saying). I don't see why he had to declare himself as dearest of gods.

Yes, from most accounts, it seems the vedic period did not rely on idol worship. I don't know about pre-Buddhist India, but Hsuan Tsang explicitly mentions Devalayas and idols within them. He also mentions Buddha-viharas, with Buddha statues in them. So that's that, by at least 600 AD, not only were Hindus worshiping idols in India, but the Buddhists were too. I have only read Fa-Hian in summary so far, need to get into reading his memoirs in earnest.

syam wrote:This transition, I am very interested in. If we can do research on it, we may discover new stuff. It may contradict the whole story so far we are following.

I too am interested in it, for slightly different reasons. If you are interested, please see the new thread I started - "Hindu/ Buddhist Relations." I was trying to explore some of these issues over there.

syam wrote:I think that is bit of strong words for our monks. Buddhist didn't go and convert poor people by offering rice bags.

We all going through some hard times. It's nothing calm and pleasant these days. We really need to take a break from all the stuff going on.

True, I don't believe Buddhists preyed on poverty, but back then, by all accounts, there *was* no poverty, the Chinese travelers describe India as a land of plenty with prosperous well-fed people who could afford to splurge on gold and diamonds. But the Chinese travelers' accounts are nevertheless filled with stories of "conversion" (though based mostly on debate and logic) and strained relations between Buddhists and Hindus of the era. Again, this is what I was trying to investigate in the new thread.

The larger lesson, says geneticist Andrés Ruiz-Linares of Fudan University in Shanghai, China, chair of CANDELA, is the pitfalls of a Eurocentric view. “Our study shows that going beyond Europeans one can find additional genes, even for well-studied traits. Clearly the bias towards Europeans has led to a restricted view of human diversity."

Spent the day in the archeological dig at Sanauli. The finds include a two chariots, copper swords, helmet etc dating from 2300-1950 BCE. Evidence growing that Gangetic plains has a civilization contemporary to Harappan & just as advanced

After two months of excavation, archaeologists have stumbled upon what they believe is a massive burial site dating back to the Harappan civilization, around 360km from Dholavira in Gujarat's Kutch district.

Archaeologists said this site is 300 m x 300 m big with more than 250 graves out of which 26 have been excavated. They found one full human skeleton that is around six feet in length, estimated to be around 5,000 years old.

Surrounded by speakers of Indo-European, Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman languages, around 11 million Munda (a branch of Austroasiatic language family) speakers live in the densely populated and genetically diverse South Asia. Their genetic makeup holds components characteristic of South Asians as well as Southeast Asians. The admixture time between these components has been previously estimated on the basis of archaeology, linguistics and uniparental markers. Using genome-wide genotype data of 102 Munda speakers and contextual data from South and Southeast Asia, we retrieved admixture dates between 2000 - 3800 years ago for different populations of Munda. The best modern proxies for the source populations for the admixture with proportions 0.78/0.22 are Lao people from Laos and Dravidian speakers from Kerala in India, while the South Asian population(s), with whom the incoming Southeast Asians intermixed, had a smaller proportion of West Eurasian component than contemporary proxies. Somewhat surprisingly Malaysian Peninsular tribes rather than the geographically closer Austroasiatic languages speakers like Vietnamese and Cambodians show highest sharing of IBD segments with the Munda. In addition, we affirmed that the grouping of the Munda speakers into North and South Munda based on linguistics is in concordance with genome-wide data.